←back to thread

796 points _Microft | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.443s | source
Show context
aequitas ◴[] No.22736838[source]
Not that I'm in favor of this practice, but the one key feature that conference software must have is: it just works™.

Nothing turns you off more from a conferencing solution than: any problem getting it working right now.

When there is just the slightest issue, one person not being able to join, one person not getting voice to work, bad audio, your entire team is blocked/distracted. Which results in a collective distain for the solution and video conferencing as a whole.

This extends to getting the solution working for greenfield installs as simple as possible. Because who knows which non-tech users from which department all need to join and can't figure out how to set the permission in their browser right or install/use the other browser that is compatible.

So sadly, from a functionality point of view, you want have the software be able to force itself onto the user in the most usable state it can.

replies(8): >>22736886 #>>22737349 #>>22737355 #>>22737357 #>>22737381 #>>22737449 #>>22738084 #>>22738434 #
1. distances ◴[] No.22737357[source]
I guess it works for some. I've had two Zoom meetings this far, and in both cases the organizer quickly changed to Jitsi as Zoom had distorted audio.

Maybe some incompatible software/hardware at some end? I don't know or even care really, but Jitsi worked well with the same participants both times, while the anecdotal Zoom success rate is still 0% for me.

replies(1): >>22742135 #
2. aequitas ◴[] No.22742135[source]
For meetings I host I'm trying to evaluate Jitsi as well, so far without much luck. I'm not hosting that many meeting and the one I did was with someone using Linux not getting screen sharing working.

But Jitsi is on my shortlist as I think being open source and self-hostable is the way forward for a tool that could knock Zoom of it's throne.